Copy a library symbol to a target library and obtain the new symbol's UUID for reference.
lib_Symbol.copy(symbolUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, targetLibraryUuid: string, targetClassification?: ILIB_ClassificationIndex | Array, newSymbolName?: string) -> Promise<string | undefined> 复制符号 returns: 目标库内新符号的 UUID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<string | undefined>) but does not state that it is a mutating operation creating a new symbol, nor any side effects, error conditions, or permissions required. The optional parameters and their effects on behavior are unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the signature, which is efficient. It avoids unnecessary prose, but the one-line Chinese description adds little beyond the signature. Overall, it is concise and structured, though not exceptionally well-organized for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters, how to obtain required UUIDs, error handling, or any side effects. Given the complexity of the operation (copying between libraries), more context is needed. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return value semantics beyond 'UUID', but it only provides a minimal statement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides the full parameter list with types (symbolUuid, libraryUuid, targetLibraryUuid, targetClassification, newSymbolName), which is helpful beyond the generic schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter, especially targetClassification (ILIB_ClassificationIndex | Array<string>) which is a complex type. The schema coverage is 100% only for the wrapper properties, so the description is the primary source for parameter semantics but remains incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'copy symbol' via the method signature and Chinese '复制符号'. It identifies the resource (lib_Symbol) and operation (copy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/modify. However, it lacks any elaboration on what copying entails (e.g., preserving pins, properties).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_symbol_create or eda_lib_symbol_modify. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. An agent must infer usage solely from the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.